Analysis For American Dream Case
Analysis for ‘American Dream’ case
In the case, there were three parts, Local Union P-9, international and Hormel Meat packing Company, who wanted to negotiate the issue about the wage cut and unfair treatment. Due to the linkage effects, the International disagreed with the strategy of P-9. The international thought that it would cause other profitable problems. In the end, P-9 and Hormel Meat packing Company became two more important parts on the negotiation table. Due to some mistakes, it was a failed negotiation. From the case, I want to analysis about the mistakes P9 made in the negotiation of the case.
First, P-9 wasn’t fully prepared before the negotiation. Ray, the consultant of P-9, was just a consultant and not a professional negotiator. The fact was that he was an over aspiring negotiator because he set the target point too high and didn’t give the chance for counterparty to make any concessions. Furthermore, his BATNAS was improper. BATNAS is not what the negotiator hopes for, but what he really needs depends on the reality. Therefore, BATNAS can constantly change to adapt to changeable situation. However, the P-9 always insisted that the $10.69 per hour is the final offer and refused any other offers. Even though they were at a disadvantage and Hormel offer $10 per hour for 3 years, P-9 rejected without concessions. Moreover, Ray didn’t fully consider the reservation point which was the most important factor in the negotiation. He just considered the reservation point as the target point. Therefore, the agreement was difficult to be made between two parts. Furthermore, he ignored the sunk costs and risks in the negotiation. He just focus on what he wanted and didn’t figure out how much cost he would pay on the strike. As a result, he couldn’t do anything to change the consequence and failed the negotiation.
Second, P-9 used power-based negotiation in wrong way. He thought that there must be a winner in the negotiation and used the negative emotional
In the case, there were three parts, Local Union P-9, international and Hormel Meat packing Company, who wanted to negotiate the issue about the wage cut and unfair treatment. Due to the linkage effects, the International disagreed with the strategy of P-9. The international thought that it would cause other profitable problems. In the end, P-9 and Hormel Meat packing Company became two more important parts on the negotiation table. Due to some mistakes, it was a failed negotiation. From the case, I want to analysis about the mistakes P9 made in the negotiation of the case.
First, P-9 wasn’t fully prepared before the negotiation. Ray, the consultant of P-9, was just a consultant and not a professional negotiator. The fact was that he was an over aspiring negotiator because he set the target point too high and didn’t give the chance for counterparty to make any concessions. Furthermore, his BATNAS was improper. BATNAS is not what the negotiator hopes for, but what he really needs depends on the reality. Therefore, BATNAS can constantly change to adapt to changeable situation. However, the P-9 always insisted that the $10.69 per hour is the final offer and refused any other offers. Even though they were at a disadvantage and Hormel offer $10 per hour for 3 years, P-9 rejected without concessions. Moreover, Ray didn’t fully consider the reservation point which was the most important factor in the negotiation. He just considered the reservation point as the target point. Therefore, the agreement was difficult to be made between two parts. Furthermore, he ignored the sunk costs and risks in the negotiation. He just focus on what he wanted and didn’t figure out how much cost he would pay on the strike. As a result, he couldn’t do anything to change the consequence and failed the negotiation.
Second, P-9 used power-based negotiation in wrong way. He thought that there must be a winner in the negotiation and used the negative emotional